Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:25 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:17 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:09 pm
begin to exist means that it does not exist and then exists. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

This must mean that there is a beginning.

Yes, but it also says that time didn't exist and then exists.

But isn’t it contradictory to say that and also to say there’s no beginning, which means it always existed without a beginning???

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:25 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:17 pm

This must mean that there is a beginning.

Yes, but it also says that time didn't exist and then exists.

But isn’t it contradictory to say that and also to say there’s no beginning, which means it always existed without a beginning???

It is contrary since it means that we are dealing with an infinite regress.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:01 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:25 pm
Yes, but it also says that time didn't exist and then exists.

But isn’t it contradictory to say that and also to say there’s no beginning, which means it always existed without a beginning???

It is contrary since it means that we are dealing with an infinite regress.

Got it.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:01 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:40 pm

But isn’t it contradictory to say that and also to say there’s no beginning, which means it always existed without a beginning???

It is contrary since it means that we are dealing with an infinite regress.

Got it.

I am so happy that you got it!

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:13 am You stated the following...

"...There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime..."

However, seeing how I obviously have no life and nothing better to do at the moment, I have taken the time to compile a random sampling of your previous statements on that issue [bracketed interjections mine]...

• "There are many minds [plural] but each has existed and will exist forever."
  ----
  "Minds [plural] don't come from anything. They [plural] simply exist."
  ----
  "That is the ability of all minds [plural]."
  ----
  "Your mind, mine, other minds [plural] are writing different stories, the separate live's story, and together they [plural] write the history."
  ----
  "What we have is a set of interacting minds [plural] rather than a set of interacting particles."
  ----
  "There are many minds [plural] involved in the motion of the cosmos."
  ----
  "There was no moment in which minds [plural] didn't exist. Minds [plural] have existed since the beginning of time."
  ----
  "Minds [plural] existed since the time of Big Bang."
  ----
  "Because minds [plural] are real. There is no way to logically avoid them [plural]."
  ----
  "Or we can agree that there are many minds [plural] and start from there. We also need to agree to definition of mind, mind being essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause."
  ----
  "I argue that our experiences are personal. Separate personal experience requires separate mind. Therefore there are minds [plural]."

I could go on and on, bahman, on how you've contradicted your "there's only one mind" assertion, but I think I've made my point.

You should warn people of their need to wear a neck brace when reading your posts.

(Continued in next post)
_______

You are mixing the mind with persons,...

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

And now you've done exactly what I suspected you would do when I posted the following,...

Now, if this turns out to be yet another situation where you end up saying...

"...Well, I should have said this, and not that..."

...then, in the immortal words of Johnny Carson,...

"...May a thousand camels throw a party in your underwear..."

...because you are now suggesting that you should have said "many persons" instead of "many minds" as was pointed out in that long list of past statements made by you.

We can only respond to the words you post, bahman, and not to some alternative meaning that you may have had in mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am ...the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while the person is physical.

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am There was a long time I believed that each person has a mind but that idea has changed into one mind.

And that's where you seem to have taken a wrong turn in your reasoning.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am The problem with the former idea was that we are moving and as a result, our minds move as well. This leads to a change in mind, mind however changeless, therefore we have a problem that can be solved by assuming that there is only one mind.

What do you mean "our minds"? [again, plural]

I thought you said there is only "one mind."

Fortunately, I'm wearing my neck brace.

(Continued in next post)
_______

_______

(Continued from prior post)

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:13 am

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:15 am Furthermore, seeing how we leave these physical bodies behind when we die,...



...then please describe for me what aspect of our being becomes "unified with all other beings"?

I don't know what a soul is but I believe that that would be my soul that survives death.

Right. The soul (which is just another name for the "I Am-ness") is what survives the death of the body, with the body simply being the metaphorical equivalent of a momentary "placental-like" encasement of the soul.

In other words (and as strange as this may sound), from the perspective of the higher dimension of reality ("true reality") that our souls will be born into after death, the soul has the same relative relationship to this...



...as this...



...has to this...



...hence, the reason why I created this illustration...



(Continued in next post)
_______

_______

(Continued from prior post)

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:13 am God is real this world is caused by God.

You said that you read the OP in my thread - My "Burning Bush-like" encounter with God. - viewtopic.php?t=41452

In which case, do you actually think that your statement about God being "real," along with the world being "caused by God" is a new revelation for me?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:16 am A forever fruitful purpose cannot help you to not get bored from your life.

Well, you suggested that simply "knowing" the meaning of life will be enough to keep us happy and satisfied for eternity. However, I'm bored already at just the thought of such a stagnant proposition.

Look, bahman, it seems as if we both believe that our lives will continue on forever in a higher context of reality,...

...of which I suggested that the creation and maintenance of our own personal and autonomous universe created from the living fabric of our own mind...

(just as I [and Berkeley] proclaim God has done with her mind)

...is the only thing that would make sense for an entity in possession of eternal life.

However, even though I am certain that you don't fully understand what the above proposal entails, if you can think of something that would be less boring and more purposeful than that, then let's hear it.

And lastly, we simply don't know what our actual psychology will be like in our fully-awakened, eternal state of consciousness. Therefore, it is foolish to make predictions from our present level of being about whether or not one can get bored in that higher level of being.
_______

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 1:00 pm To elaborate, we are dealing with two states of affairs, in which first there is nothing, and then there is something. But this requires time to happen because of then. But there is no time in nothing! Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

On the other hand, logic only exists because we exist. And what do the rules of human language...rules that we mere mortals have invented/discovered...have to do with grasping the existence of existence itself? Assuming we are the only intelligent life form in the universe and that "somehow" God or No God we did acquire autonomy, how to even begin to grasp questions like this when for billions of years there were no minds around to ask them?

The existence of existence itself seems to be no less "spooky" than it ever was. In fact, the more astrophysicists discover about the staggering strangeness of things "out there" the "spookier" it becomes.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:17 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:26 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:39 pm
There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime. I have an argument for that if you are interested.

But you have previously said and claimed that there are, at least, two minds, and, that you have an argument for this as well.

So, which one of these two opposing and contradictory claims here is correct?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:39 pm
The mind as I mentioned in the previous comment.

Sorry, I had to say two persons instead of two minds.

What?

This appears to be just another one of your attempts to somehow get out of, or detract away from, another one of your blatantly obvious 'self-refuting contradictions', which you very clearly continuously make and create here.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:09 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:58 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:50 am
I am afraid I cannot help you.

Is that because grammar is beyond you?

No, because you don't understand my explanation.

And one reason is because you keep contracting your previous claims in 'your explanations'.

Stop contradicting your previous words, then you can be much better understood.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:09 pm You replace exist with eat trying to make a point! Again, begin to exist means that it does not exist and then exists. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

I think you will find absolutely every one here understands that the words, 'begin to exist', means that 'it'[whatever] did not, previously exist, and then exists.

I do not think absolutely anyone here has any trouble nor issue understanding what you say here.

It is the other things that you say, and try to claim, which all of 'us' here are having trouble understanding.

Like, for example and this is only one of many, many other examples. you say, and try to claim:

P1. Time cannot begin to exist, by this I mean that it does not exist and then exists, since this is a change and any change requires time.
P2. This leads to an infinite regress that is logically impossible.
P3. We can exclude that time has existed eternally in the past for the same reason, infinite regress.
C. So time has to have a beginning.

Besides this being an absolutely 'unsound and invalid argument', this is just absurdity at the highest level.

you start and begin with: Time cannot begin to exist.
Then lots of completely irrational, nonsensical, and off-tangent remarks claims.
Then conclude and end with: So, Time has to have a beginning.

Now, if you cannot see and understand why all of 'us' here are not understanding what you are trying to say 'here', then I really do not know what else to do to help you understand.

And, this is just one 'thing' that you are trying to say here, out of many 'things', which have pointed out to you, that you are trying to say, which 'we' just do not understand.

Maybe, if you 'go back', remove the 'currently' held onto beliefs and presumptions, which you obviously have and are holding to here, just 'look at' what is actually irrefutably True and Right, first, and then 'come back' and 'try to formulate' some arguments, then you might get understood, better.

Until then, 'the way' you are doing things here is only leading you absolutely astray. Now, and to be totally Honest with you, some of the things you say and believe here are absolutely irrefutably True and Right. But, 'the way' you go about trying to express them and argue for them is absolutely illogical, irrational, ridiculous, and absurd.

Have you ever considered why so many people here do not understand you at all?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:25 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:17 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:09 pm
begin to exist means that it does not exist and then exists. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

This must mean that there is a beginning.

Yes, but it also says that time didn't exist and then exists.

So, why then is it you alone here "bahman" stating and claiming that: Time cannot begin to exist ?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:01 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:40 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:25 pm
Yes, but it also says that time didn't exist and then exists.

But isn’t it contradictory to say that and also to say there’s no beginning, which means it always existed without a beginning???

It is contrary since it means that we are dealing with an infinite regress.

Maybe if you removed your own personal definition for the 'infinite regress' phrase or term, then you would not get and become so contradictory here.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:18 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 8:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:01 pm
It is contrary since it means that we are dealing with an infinite regress.

Got it.

I am so happy that you got it!

you were joking here right "commonsense"?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:13 am You stated the following...


However, seeing how I obviously have no life and nothing better to do at the moment, I have taken the time to compile a random sampling of your previous statements on that issue [bracketed interjections mine]...

I could go on and on, bahman, on how you've contradicted your "there's only one mind" assertion, but I think I've made my point.

You should warn people of their need to wear a neck brace when reading your posts.

(Continued in next post)
_______

You are mixing the mind with persons,...

I'm not mixing anything with anything, you're the one who repeatedly stated that there are "many minds" while at the same time insisting that there is only "one mind."

And now you've done exactly what I suspected you would do when I posted the following,...

Now, if this turns out to be yet another situation where you end up saying...

"...Well, I should have said this, and not that..."

...then, in the immortal words of Johnny Carson,...

"...May a thousand camels throw a party in your underwear..."

...because you are now suggesting that you should have said "many persons" instead of "many minds" as was pointed out in that long list of past statements made by you.

We can only respond to the words you post, bahman, and not to some alternative meaning that you may have had in mind.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am ...the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while the person is physical.

It is quite obvious that you and I have a completely different interpretation of what the word "mind" means.

I think it could be discovered that there is not another human being who has the same interpretation what the 'mind' word means with either or you two here.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 pm My interpretation is that the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind, is what experiences things, while the mind itself is simply the closed "spatial arena" where the experiencing (and the manipulation of mental holography by the "agent") takes place.

On the other hand, your interpretation is far too ambiguous to even begin to make any sense of.

And, do you really believe that your own personal interpretation just 'shown' and 'revealed' here is not far too ambiguous?

And/or, not far too ambiguous for most human beings to even begin to make any sense of?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am There was a long time I believed that each person has a mind but that idea has changed into one mind.

And that's where you seem to have taken a wrong turn in your reasoning.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:04 am The problem with the former idea was that we are moving and as a result, our minds move as well. This leads to a change in mind, mind however changeless, therefore we have a problem that can be solved by assuming that there is only one mind.

What do you mean "our minds"? [again, plural]

I thought you said there is only "one mind."

Fortunately, I'm wearing my neck brace.

(Continued in next post)
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:50 pm _______

(Continued from prior post)

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:13 am

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:15 am Furthermore, seeing how we leave these physical bodies behind when we die,...



...then please describe for me what aspect of our being becomes "unified with all other beings"?

I don't know what a soul is but I believe that that would be my soul that survives death.

Right. The soul (which is just another name for the "I Am-ness")

Actually, the other name/word/label for, your so-called, 'I Am-ness' is Spirit.

The 'soul' word is just another name/word/label for 'you', individual people.

As again, can and will be proved irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 pm is what survives the death of the body, with the body simply being the metaphorical equivalent of a momentary "placental-like" encasement of the soul.

Although 'the soul' does not 'die' and thus survives in 'one form', 'the body' also does not 'die' either.

But firstly other things need to be learned, and understood, before this can be explained in a way that could be understood, fully, by you, people.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 pm In other words (and as strange as this may sound), from the perspective of the higher dimension of reality ("true reality") that our souls will be born into after death, the soul has the same relative relationship to this...

So, in one sentence of yours here "seeds", 'the soul' survives, but then in another sentence, 'the soul' actually 'will be born', again, 'after actual death'.

Are you able to, and willing to, explain this apparent 'contradiction' here?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 pm

...as this...



...has to this...



...hence, the reason why I created this illustration...



(Continued in next post)
_______